MEMBERS PRESENT:       Peter Gibbs (Chairman); Mark Sammut, Kay Kraushaar, Anna Rosenblum Palmer, David Conard, Claude LaPierre. (J.D. Landry was absent.)

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Sara Tompkins, John Hollenbach, Beth Phillips, Cecile Guillemette, Mike Anderson, Monique Denault, Chris Jensen, Eric Morris, Judith & Stephen Selin, Ernest Auclair, Gerry Guillemette.

·        Design Review, Sign Replacement, Chittenden Bank/People’s United Bank, 10 Shelburne Shopping Park, Twin State Signs (DR10-12)

·        Design Review/Conditional Use, Modify Non-Conforming Structure and Relocate Apartment, 985 Falls Road (Comeau), Selin & Selin Architecture (DR10-10\CU10-04)

·        Design Review, Exterior Renovations and Fence, 1115 Falls Road, Christina Jensen (DR10-13)

·         Road Frontage Access, Lot Access off Route 116, Lot at 53 Pond Road, Mike Anderson (RFA10-01)

·        Final Plan Amendment, Common Boundary Adjustment, 370 Monarch Road & 823 Shelburne-Hinesburg Road, Eric Morris and David Hollenbeck (SUB03-04R5)

·        Design Review/Site Plan/Conditional Use, Modify Structure, Parking, and Change of Use, 61 & 63 Harbor Road, Judith and Stephen Selin (DR10-11\SP07-05R2\CU07-09R2)

Chairman Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 7 PM.

 

Claude LaPierre announced he will recuse himself from the applications by Mike Anderson (Pond Road) and David Hollenbeck (Shelburne-Hinesburg Road).

 

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

The function of the Development Review Board as a quasi-judicial board and the hearing procedure were explained. Individuals to give testimony before the Board were sworn in.

 

Monique Denault with Twin State Signs appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Monique Denault explained the bank change occurred two years ago, but the signs were not changed to reflect the corporate logo and trademark for People’s United Bank, a New England company, which has been in operation for the past 164 years. Chittenden Bank, a Vermont company, has been in operation for the past 104 years. The sign posts will be painted white as advised by the Design Review Committee, assured Ms. Denault.  No changes are planned to the ground lighting for the sign.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written report on the application, dated July 7, 2010

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public on the application. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Stephen Selin appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Stephen Selin explained the proposal for an addition to the existing house at 985 Falls Road and relocation of the existing accessory apartment. The additions comply with the setback requirements. The roof addition will match the historic portion of the house. There are no changes to the portions of the house that encroach on the setback to the west. Clapboards and trim will match existing material. Asphalt shingles will be used on the roof.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written report on the application, dated July 7, 2010

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Sara Tompkins, 969 Falls Road and representing the resident at 959 Falls Road, spoke in support of the renovations proposed by Barbara and Andy Comeau, noting the modifications will be a nice improvement to the neighborhood.

 

There were no further comments. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Christina Jensen appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Christina Jensen explained the proposal to replace and add windows on the existing dwelling at 1115 Falls Road. Marvin windows (Integrity) with wood inside and fiberglass outside will be installed. Wood clapboards will replace the vinyl siding if the clapboards underneath the siding are in good shape, otherwise any additional vinyl siding that is installed will match existing siding. Changes to the existing breezeway and exterior lighting on each side of the door include an arched door to reflect more of a farmhouse look. The garage doors will be replaced with one large door. A three foot high picket fence will be installed along the road to block car headlights and keep the dog in the yard.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a staff memo on the application, dated July 1, 2010.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Gerry Guillemette mentioned past work done on the house and spoke in support of allowing the change in siding.

 

There were no further comments. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Mike Anderson appeared on behalf of the application. Claude LaPierre recused himself.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Mike Anderson explained the request for access to a lot without road frontage at 53 Pond Road for a single family dwelling.  Access from Route 116 is requested. The originally agreed to access per the easement agreement was prior to the boundary dispute with St. George. The sketch plan, dated November 9, 2004, is for the St. George subdivision of the St. George portion of the parcel.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a staff memo on the application dated July 1, 2010 for the meeting on July 7, 2010. John Adams noted the subdivision regulations require DRB approval of access for a lot without frontage on a public road. The applicant must show there is legal accessway to the property at a minimum of 20’ wide. The Auclair family is disputing the legality of the easement agreement. The DRB can take testimony and request a legal opinion from the Town Attorney prior to making a decision. A brief history of the origination of the lots was given (long narrow wood lots). The Anderson lot is the last remaining wood lot. The town owns several lots combined.

 

David Conard advised the legality of the easement is a court (legal) issue.  Mr. Conard asked how the easement secured in 2004 benefits the parcel of land not purchased until 2005. Mike Anderson stated he would not have purchased the lot unless there was access. It was noted the easement agreement between API and Auclair allows access to the former Lewis lot over Auclair’s existing farmland. API did not own the Lewis lot, but did buy the lot at a later date and now API wants to invoke the easement to access the lot. Mr. Conard stated the easement agreement with Auclair was to access one small lot, but now API may want to use the easement to access another property where more dwellings could be located. It appears, summarized Mr. Conard, that the easement could be used for something not intended. Mr. Conard asked about the scope of the easement. Mr. Anderson reiterated the easement allows access to the Lewis lot for a single family dwelling.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Gerry Guillemette, Shelburne resident, recalled years ago API wanted to subdivide the land, but now API owns nothing.

 

Ernest Auclair, landowner, stated Mr. Anderson did not make payments on the land purchase so the agreement was cancelled. Mike Anderson explained 0 Pond Road (133 acres) was sold at auction to the Auclair family. The property at 0 Pond Road was formerly 61 Pond Road, but 61 Pond Road is now an 85 acre parcel. A subdivision plat was submitted. Also, paperwork indicating API has been reinstated was shown. Ernest Auclair stated his family purchased the property over 80 years ago and the parcel had nothing to do with the Lewis lot. Mike Anderson purchased the Lewis lot in anticipation of securing a right-of-way through the Auclair property, but the land is not for sale, stressed Mr. Auclair.

 

Heidi Auclair stated the 2004 agreement was only for the Auclair property once owned by API and returned to Auclair through foreclosure. The Auclair family was not informed about the Lewis property.

 

The DRB advised more information pertinent to the foreclosure and dissolution of the easement is needed before a decision on the application can be made.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Eric Morris appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Eric Morris explained the proposal to swap two acres from Lot 7 (Hollenbeck) with two acres from Lot 8 (conserved agricultural land) to increase the area around the Hollenbeck’s house and add two acres to the agricultural land. The land added around the Hollenbeck residence will not have the conservation restrictions that are on land in Lot 8, such as tree cutting restrictions, but there are no trees on the acres being added by the Hollenbeck residence (it was suggested the restrictions on Lot 8 should be carried over in writing to the two acres being added Lot 8). Mr. Morris noted various permits (waste water and Act 250) will have to be amended for the land swap.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated 7/7/10. Kay Kraushaar stated a letter from the Vermont Land Trust should be submitted affirming the land swap.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public on the application. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Claude LaPierre returned to the DRB.

 

Stephen and Judith Selin appeared on behalf of the application.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Stephen Selin explained the change from residential use to office use and removal of a 12’ strip of building between the front and back portion of the building (converting the space into a courtyard area). The proposed parking changes will improve site circulation and ingress/egress. Fire code requirements include 10’ separation from the building to the property line. The property at 61 Harbor Road will have 10’ of separation provided 63 Harbor Road has no penetrations and the proper fire rating for the wall. There will be bike racks at each address (61 and 63 Harbor Road). Trees will be added to match existing plantings. A new walkway to the front door will be built. The porch will be removed. There is a signed lease from the state for parking in the adjacent state owned parking lot by the railroad. A copy of the lease was submitted to the town.  John Adams clarified the state agreed the Harbor Road property can use the parking lot for parking and egress, but the state will not agree to long term use for parking. Stephen Selin noted the proposed layout for parking and circulation works better than the original proposal so the state should not have an issue.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked about the request for a parking waiver. Mr. Selin stated 12 spaces are required, but a waiver of 50% is requested as was done with the previous application (the original waiver was granted).  There are two people working in the Selin Architecture office. John Adams noted if the DRB feels it is justified to grant the parking waiver the waiver can be up to 50% of the required parking if the property has bike access and is in proximity to public parking.

 

Peter Gibbs asked if the walkway will serve both properties. Mr. Selin stated the deed for each property says that each property has the right to cross over and use the other property for access. There is not a problem to move the walkway over two feet if necessary, said Mr. Selin. John Adams suggested there could be a condition regarding shared use of the walkway.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written staff report on the application, dated July 7, 2010.

 

David Conard mentioned the need for more information pertaining to landscaping, the number of parking spaces, lighting, and removal of the gate posts. Mr. Conard asked about the use in the building in the back. Mr. Selin stated the building will be an office use.

 

Peter Gibbs suggested there be a survey of the properties by a state licensed surveyor as should be required with every site plan review. A survey is needed to verify the building’s exact location.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

John Hollenbach and Beth Phillips, neighbors, spoke in support of the intent of the application and welcomed improvements to the village area of Shelburne. Mr. Hollenbach mentioned conversations with Stephen Selin about run off from the roof, noting an addition on the adjacent property to the east caused flooding in the backyard this past spring. There is a storm water drain in the curb cut so grading or catch basins to direct the run off in that direction would be good. Stephen Selin pointed out some roof top is being removed and replaced with a courtyard of crushed stone which should improve the drainage.

 

There were no further comments. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

David Conard explained his abstention from the vote was because conditions were being crafted “on the fly” and something could be over looked. Mr. Conard stated information from other town committees and departments should be received prior to the day of the hearing. Peter Gibbs added the chairman should not be signing off on the approval without a survey to verify the building location.

 

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer suggested staff present their report on applications prior to the applicant presenting their proposal.

 

A joint meeting with the DRB and Planning Commission will be scheduled in mid-September.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:       Peter Gibbs (Chairman); Mark Sammut, Kay Kraushaar, Anna Rosenblum Palmer, David Conard, Claude LaPierre, J.D. Landry.

STAFF PRESENT:                John Adams, Zoning Administrator.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Adam Lougee, Terry Kennaugh, Eric Fritzeen, Marge Sharp (Shelburne News).

·        Conditional Use, Sign Modification, 2545 Shelburne Road, Lakeshore Hospitality Group, LLC (CU10-05)

·        Pre-Application, PUD-R Rural, 7545 Dorset Street Extension, Adam Lougee

·        Road Frontage Access, Lot Access off Route 116, Lot at 53 Pond Road, Mike Anderson (RFA10-01)

Chairman Peter Gibbs called the meeting to order at 7 PM.

 

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

 

The function of the Development Review Board as a quasi-judicial board and the hearing procedure were explained. Individuals to give testimony before the Board were sworn in.

 

Eric Fritzeen appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a written report on the application, dated July 21, 2010. John Adams explained the conditional use application to modify an existing non-complying sign. The new sign has not been installed, but there is a temporary banner in place over the existing sign. The add-on sign (reads “Gift Cards For Sale”) is not addressed in the staff report, but if the sign is modified and does not exceed six square feet in size (current zoning regulation) then a conditional use approval for that sign is not necessary. The existing lighting is under the old bylaws. The floodlight installed by Green Mountain Power will be changed to be in compliance with current lighting standards. There are provisions in the regulations that allow for modification of existing non-conforming signs provided the conditional use criteria are met.

 

Kay Kraushaar observed the character of the area is now internally illuminated signs are not allowed so the time is now for the existing sign to come into compliance. Anna Rosenblum Palmer commented there are lots of ‘grandfathered’ signs.

 

David Conard asked if there are other lighting or signage issues not in conformance on the site. John Adams said the lighting was approved in the 1980s. The floodlight is the most obvious light that would not be approved under the current regulations. Kay Kraushaar suggested full cut-off downcast light fixtures be used. Also, the light on the sign should be downcast from above rather than from the ground upward.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Eric Fritzeen could not recall when the gift card sign was installed. The oval sign is 30 s.f. (5’x 6’). Regarding the sign illumination, Mr. Fritzeen noted other examples in the area of illuminated signs (Champlain Beverage). The ground lights for the sign were there to illuminate the carved bear statues and landscaping. The sign will only have a back glow of color. The white portion will be opaque. The sign lights will be on during hours of operation. The restaurant will close at 1 AM on weekends and earlier during the week. Right now there are lights shining on the building because there have been problems with trespass during construction. Regarding site lighting, the ingress and egress are very dark, dangerously dark. The parking lot is lacking adequate lighting. The existing light can be turned to shine on the sign and cast light on the entryway a bit. Mr. Fritzeen commented there is much to do to prepare the site for business and the site lighting there now works so the intention was not to redo lighting in the parking lot at this time. The owner of the property could be asked to do this. The back parking lot is very dark and must be addressed at some point in time.

 

Mr. Fritzeen asked if the gift card sign could be replaced with a reader board with black background so only the lettering is visible. John Adams explained the regulations allow a six square foot sign that is not internally illuminated. Following further discussion, the DRB confirmed the wording on the existing gift card sign could be changed because the sign is pre-existing and the nonconformity is not being increased. It was suggested the gift card sign could be centered to be farther from the road.

 

Mr. Fritzeen asked if the bear statues can be illuminated. The DRB felt the request is separate from the application under review.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Terry Kennaugh, Shelburne resident, testified the floodlight impacts drivers on Route 7 due to the upslope of the road. A 400 watt bulb is bright and the angle of the beam is spread 140’ even though the light is aimed at the building. Patrons of the motel cross the road and because the light is in the eyes of drivers on the road a dangerous situation is created. Mr. Kennaugh suggested using full cut-off lights at the entry. Eric Fritzeen agreed to change the light at the entrance.

 

There were no further comments from the public on the application. The evidentiary portion of the hearing was closed.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

 

Adam Lougee appeared on behalf of the application.

 

STAFF REPORT

The DRB received a staff memo on the pre-application conference for the PUD-R proposal at 7545 Dorset Street Ext. by Adam Lougee, dated July 15, 2010 for the July 21, 2010 meeting. John Adams explained the focus is on the proposal. A decision from the DRB is not required with a pre-application conference.

 

APPLICANT COMMENTS

Adam Lougee provided photographs of the site. The existing 10 acre lot has 421.73’ of frontage. The newly created lot will have 200’ of frontage leaving 221.73’ for the existing lot. The existing house is in the northwest corner of the lot near Dorset Street Extension. The lot was created on July 26, 1990.

 

David Conard commented there cannot be a one lot Planned Unit Development. A two-lot PUD with both lots subject to the PUD permit is possible. Both lots have enough frontage to meet the minimum requirement so a straight subdivision could be created with two five acre lots. Mr. Lougee explained the intention was to structure the subdivision to create a building lot of decent size rather than two equally sized lots. There is a stream on the property and the plan is to preserve the natural features as one piece which can be done better through a PUD.

 

Peter Gibbs asked about the septic system fitting on the two acre lot along with the well. Mr. Lougee explained each house has two trenches and replacements. The septic system for the two acre lot may be located elsewhere on the property.

 

David Conard mentioned having the adjoining property owner, David Palmer, sign off on the easement for the second dwelling. Mr. Lougee confirmed he has talked to Mr. Palmer. The building envelope for the second house will be the same distance from Dorset Street as the other houses.

 

Peter Gibbs stated as the process proceeds there will be further discussion of screening between the proposed lot and the neighboring houses. Mr. Lougee pointed out there is an existing hedgerow which roughly defines the property line.

 

Anna Rosenblum Palmer asked if there is a plan for the house. Adam Lougee said not yet. The driveway to the house is planned to line up across Simmons Road (private road). The existing well yields 60 gallons per minute. The plan is to dig a pond below the house with water supplied by the well.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public.

 

DELIBERATION/DECISION

Pre-application conferences are for informational purposes only. There is no decision required by the DRB.

 

 

 

Peter Gibbs will compile topics from the DRB to discuss at the joint meeting and communicate to the Planning Commission that a meeting in September is better than a meeting in August for the DRB.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM.